Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Columbus
936 F. Supp. 1363 | District Court, S.D. Ohio | 1996
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Columbus, Ohio's Equal Business Opportunity Code required that minority- and women-owned subcontractors receive set percentages (21% and 10%) of city construction dollars. A federal court struck down the program, ruling that Columbus failed to prove past discrimination in its contracting practices. The decision means cities cannot impose race- or gender-based contracting preferences without solid evidence that discrimination actually occurred in their procurement history.
Key Takeaways
- •Cities must document specific, measurable evidence of past discrimination before imposing minority or women-owned business set-asides—population demographics alone don't justify preferences
- •If you're a non-minority or non-woman-owned firm, challenge any new local contracting preferences by demanding the city produce hard data proving discrimination occurred
- •If you're a minority or women-owned firm, expect that local set-aside programs may be vulnerable to legal challenge and plan accordingly for competitive bidding without preference protections
The Columbus EBO Code of 1993 fails this test.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a city require contractors to hire a certain percentage of minority or women-owned subcontractors?
Only if the city can prove with solid evidence that discrimination actually happened in its contracting history. Population statistics or general claims of discrimination aren't enough. The city must show specific data about how many qualified minority and women-owned contractors existed and whether they received a fair share of past contracts.
Related Cases
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.